Okay...I'll see it because it's Star Wars, but I'm still not blown away. I hope that this is more impressive when I see the full movie. But again,. it's Star Wars so I'll see it but Idon't think that this film was necessary. Han's introduction in ANH was perfect as is. Unlike Rogue One which actually had a lot to add to the saga as a whole and fit in well in the chronological films (new viewers should absolutely watch R1 prior to ANH), this film still seems like an aside to the saga and though it may turn out to be a fun ride I still don't think it has a suitable place within the saga as a whole.

I Agree 100%. I'll go see a Han Solo movie, in fact, after TLJ I'm looking forward to this one more than Ep.9. So hopefully its good. Even if it is though it just kind of seems to me to be unnecessary. Han is in my top 3 favorite star wars characters so its cool to have him as the sole focus of a movie but... we already have three movies where his character is thoroughly explored. If they are going to start doing movies based on one character, I'd prefer they do characters that received little to no screen time. But not Boba Fett because f Boba Fett.

Okay...I'll see it because it's Star Wars, but I'm still not blown away. I hope that this is more impressive when I see the full movie. But again,. it's Star Wars so I'll see it but Idon't think that this film was necessary. Han's introduction in ANH was perfect as is. Unlike Rogue One which actually had a lot to add to the saga as a whole and fit in well in the chronological films (new viewers should absolutely watch R1 prior to ANH), this film still seems like an aside to the saga and though it may turn out to be a fun ride I still don't think it has a suitable place within the saga as a whole.

I Agree 100%. I'll go see a Han Solo movie, in fact, after TLJ I'm looking forward to this one more than Ep.9. So hopefully its good. Even if it is though it just kind of seems to me to be unnecessary. Han is in my top 3 favorite star wars characters so its cool to have him as the sole focus of a movie but... we already have three movies where his character is thoroughly explored. If they are going to start doing movies based on one character, I'd prefer they do characters that received little to no screen time. But not Boba Fett because f Boba Fett.

Even though TLJ was a big letdown, TFA was still very good. With that said, I think I'm still more looking forward to Episode 9 to see how it all ends. However, I have to say that the (re)-introduction of the Falcon in TFA was one of the most exciting moments in that already exciting film and a true moment that made it feel like a SW film after all to me (that and of course the "Chewie, we're home" scene) so even though I'm not sold on the actor playing Han, the prominent presence of the Falcon in this film will hopefully bring me home again too.

Hey Vibroblade, I think it was you who once referred to the Millennium Falcon as practically another character of the original trilogy, a setting with a life of its own. Do I hear an "amen"?

"Your focus determines your reality." --Qui-Gon Jinn
"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination." --John Lennon
"Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere." --Carl Sagan

Lord Tesla wrote:But it it just me, or is Maz Kanata briefly visible in the second trailer? Manning a gun turret.

No, I thought so too.

I'm pretty sure it was indeed her. Nice continuity with her relationship with Han in TFA.

"Your focus determines your reality." --Qui-Gon Jinn
"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination." --John Lennon
"Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere." --Carl Sagan

Even though TLJ was a big letdown, TFA was still very good. With that said, I think I'm still more looking forward to Episode 9 to see how it all ends. However, I have to say that the (re)-introduction of the Falcon in TFA was one of the most exciting moments in that already exciting film and a true moment that made it feel like a SW film after all to me (that and of course the "Chewie, we're home" scene) so even though I'm not sold on the actor playing Han, the prominent presence of the Falcon in this film will hopefully bring me home again too.

Yeah, TLJ honestly just killed the new trilogy for me. After seeing TFA I was like, "eh... ok, let's see where their going with this". After TLJ, for me it turned into, "Yeah, ok. Whatever." Not gonna lie and say I'm not gonna watch it, but I may not go see it in the theaters.

Anyways, my bad that was kinda off topic. So I have a question for you and anybody else who wants to answer: Who would you have play Han if you could pick anyone (other than Harrison Ford)? I tried to think of one, but honestly couldn't, because I think that fans will be disappointed no matter who they select for the part. In fact, when I first heard of this movie, the first thing I said was, "Man, I kinda feel bad for whoever is gonna be Han. I can already feel the hate flowing through the fan base." To me, Harrison Ford is Han Solo. You can be the best actor in the world, but his performance as Han can't be replicated. In light of that, I am going to try my best to give this guy a break. I'm trying to view Han Solo in this movie as almost a "new" character, like when they switch actors for James Bond. I know that's kinda like comparing apples to oranges, but its the way I'm looking at it.

That's an interesting point of view, Zapp, when you think about it. We've had changes in Bond, Batman, Superman, Obi-Wan, and we've accepted them all for the most part. But yet it seems so much harder with Star Wars.

"Your focus determines your reality." --Qui-Gon Jinn
"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination." --John Lennon
"Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere." --Carl Sagan

That's an interesting point of view, Zapp, when you think about it. We've had changes in Bond, Batman, Superman, Obi-Wan, and we've accepted them all for the most part. But yet it seems so much harder with Star Wars.

That's a fair point, but I would argue in regards to the first three, there is such an immense amount of source material and a certain timelessness of the character, so to speak, that it allows for those changes. Batman has had how many writers over the years as far as the comics go, so there are different interpretations of the character. Compare that to Han, who has always just been Han. Sure, the EU and stuff kind of dove into him a bit more, but there was never really a major deviation. I think it would be different if the new trilogy was set in the same general period as the OT, with a whole new cast for the same characters, and they came out and said, "Okay, we've changed the actors but the characters are still the same."

That's an interesting point of view, Zapp, when you think about it. We've had changes in Bond, Batman, Superman, Obi-Wan, and we've accepted them all for the most part. But yet it seems so much harder with Star Wars.

That's a fair point, but I would argue in regards to the first three, there is such an immense amount of source material and a certain timelessness of the character, so to speak, that it allows for those changes. Batman has had how many writers over the years as far as the comics go, so there are different interpretations of the character. Compare that to Han, who has always just been Han. Sure, the EU and stuff kind of dove into him a bit more, but there was never really a major deviation. I think it would be different if the new trilogy was set in the same general period as the OT, with a whole new cast for the same characters, and they came out and said, "Okay, we've changed the actors but the characters are still the same."

I see what you're saying, and I don't disagree. It isn't exactly the same as those. I'm not particularly stoked that they cast a new Han for the spin off, but I'm gonna give this dude a chance. There's no way he upstages Harrison Ford's portrayal, that's why I prefer to think of it as a "new take" on the character.

That's an interesting point of view, Zapp, when you think about it. We've had changes in Bond, Batman, Superman, Obi-Wan, and we've accepted them all for the most part. But yet it seems so much harder with Star Wars.

That's a fair point, but I would argue in regards to the first three, there is such an immense amount of source material and a certain timelessness of the character, so to speak, that it allows for those changes. Batman has had how many writers over the years as far as the comics go, so there are different interpretations of the character. Compare that to Han, who has always just been Han. Sure, the EU and stuff kind of dove into him a bit more, but there was never really a major deviation. I think it would be different if the new trilogy was set in the same general period as the OT, with a whole new cast for the same characters, and they came out and said, "Okay, we've changed the actors but the characters are still the same."

I see what you're saying, and I don't disagree. It isn't exactly the same as those. I'm not particularly stoked that they cast a new Han for the spin off, but I'm gonna give this dude a chance. There's no way he upstages Harrison Ford's portrayal, that's why I prefer to think of it as a "new take" on the character.

Right on dude. I'm with you; I want to give him a chance and will not be one of those "HARRISON IS THE ONLY HAN!" people. Let's see what he's got.

Not to be a downer, but I will probably not watch this in theater. I'm not very interested in this film with the square-faced guy playing what based on its trailers and TV-spots seems to be a generic "bad boy" in a generic and formulaic plot.

The "190-years old" line from the trailer and TV-spot was amusing though.

One week out from Aussie release and my friend and I are still the only tickets sold in the session we booked. I go Gold Class which is recliner chairs and only 38 seats in the cinema. This time for TLJ the cinema was fully booked out. So Mags you aren't the only Star Wars fan not interested in seeing this film.

One week out from Aussie release and my friend and I are still the only tickets sold in the session we booked. I go Gold Class which is recliner chairs and only 38 seats in the cinema. This time for TLJ the cinema was fully booked out. So Mags you aren't the only Star Wars fan not interested in seeing this film.

While I like Ron Howard, I can understand why.

Read a few Swedish reviews (there aren't many yet) as I was a bit curious. Sveriges Television (Swedish Public Service television) called it "dead", "plastic" and "as forgettable as a toy from McDonald's". The reviewer also wrote that Ehrenreich "can't even in your wildest imagination grow up to become Harrison Ford": SVT

The Swedish evening paper Aftonbladet wrote that it's "sometimes spectacular", but also "predictable, repetitive space action". Ehrenreich is described as "bland" and "lacking the burly charm Harrison Ford injected into the character". Aftonbladet rated it 2/5: Aftonbladet

I've seen the film and enjoyed it. It is a lighthearted affair. The script could have been read as a comedy but has been shot as a drama with a few humorous lines thrown in. I now know who the villain will be in the Kenobi standalone as they pop in at the very end.

I really enjoyed it. Went in with low expectations and came out very satisfied. I thought Donald Glover was great as Lando. I enjoyed the Han and Chewie dynamic. No, it wasn't Harrison Ford caliber performance of Han, but I don't care. I'd watch this every day of the week and twice on Sunday over The Last Jedi.

"Solo: A Star Wars Story" - There was a lot of doubt about this one; in large part, I'm sure, due to someone other than Harrison Ford playing Han Solo. Other factors included franchise fatigue and production drama (original directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller fired due to "creative differences" and replaced by Ron Howard - "Stick to the plan. Do not improvise").

I don't know how "Solo" would have turned had Miller and Lord been able to complete the movie, but Howard has delivered a winner, the best of the Star Wars movies since Disney acquired the franchise, just edging out "Rogue One."

Even if the original Star Wars wasn't quite as gritty, there's a physical feel to "Solo" that reminded me a lot of the Saga's beginning. And beyond the feel of the movie, there were numerous callbacks and parallels. The score by John Powell used a lot of John Williams cues, including memorable parts from "A New Hope" (though also brought new sounds and approaches).

Given what I'd read/heard about cinematographer Bradford Young and his minimal light approach, I expected more, but overall had little criticism for the movie visually. The depiction of the legendary Kessel Run in particular was atmospheric, dynamic in color and lighting.

Alden Ehrenreich acquitted himself well as Han Solo, as did the supporting cast in roles new and familiar. Woody Harrelson was as dependable as ever. Paul Bettany made the most of a small, but important role. Donald Glover was, at times, dead-on in channeling Billy Dee Williams for Lando Calrissian

As with "Rogue One," I was glad to see "Solo" embrace Star Wars as a whole and not just the original trilogy. This was evident in a lot of small details, but also in at least one major way.

Among the weaknesses is a 2 hour, 15 minute running time that felt longer. While the story was straightforward, I'd have preferred an "The Empire Strikes Back" approach of a less cluttered movie highlighting a couple big sequences/plot threads and with more quiet moments for the movie to breathe. Not all the double- and triple-crosses were necessary.

If we don't get another Han Solo movie, "A New Hope" picks up Han's story well. Meanwhile, I suspect a big development in "Solo" will be expanded on in another character's "A Star Wars Story" entry. Whatever direction they go, there are a lot of possibilities.

It was decent. The guy playing Han did a passable job, and Donald Glover was quite good as Lando, I thought. I liked Woody Harrelson in this movie more than I expected I would, and I liked how they handled the Kira character as well. It was cool to see that Kessel Run that Han was on about in ANH, and cool to see the Falcon as a new ship. I didn't really care for the Marauders or whatever they were called coming in with a sob story at the end to get Han to help them, would have preferred a shoot out or to have Han just collect his dough with a "sucks to be you guys" kind of attitude, because that's the guy I thought Han was prior to ANH. I was glad that he shot first on Beckett though, he had that coming. Overall though, it was an enjoyable movie.

Zapp don't forget that at the end of ANH that Han proves he has a soft spot for helping when he assists Luke in shooting the DS. Emilia sometimes made Qi'ra be a bit too much like Daenerys in attitude and she isn't the mother of dragons here. Val was under-utilised. It is an enjoyable film.

Zapp don't forget that at the end of ANH that Han proves he has a soft spot for helping when he assists Luke in shooting the DS. Emilia sometimes made Qi'ra be a bit too much like Daenerys in attitude and she isn't the mother of dragons here. Val was under-utilised. It is an enjoyable film.

That's true. I guess I just prefer thinking of that as his turning point rather than this movie, but it didn't kill it for me. She may not be the Mother of Dragons in this movie, but she is the Queen of the Crimson Dawn now, apparently (after the somehow-still-alive Darth Maul, of course), but I liked how it actually kept me guessing what she was gonna do. Of course, I was originally thinking she would betray Han for sure, then it convinced me that she wasn't going to... and then she totally did. lol

It was decent. The guy playing Han did a passable job, and Donald Glover was quite good as Lando, I thought. I liked Woody Harrelson in this movie more than I expected I would, and I liked how they handled the Kira character as well. It was cool to see that Kessel Run that Han was on about in ANH, and cool to see the Falcon as a new ship. I didn't really care for the Marauders or whatever they were called coming in with a sob story at the end to get Han to help them, would have preferred a shoot out or to have Han just collect his dough with a "sucks to be you guys" kind of attitude, because that's the guy I thought Han was prior to ANH. I was glad that he shot first on Beckett though, he had that coming. Overall though, it was an enjoyable movie.

Based on the number of cool things you mentioned, Han shooting first, and it being "an enjoyable movie", I think it rates more than "decent."

I don't think the intent behind the Mauraders was for it to be a "sob story", but more to plant the seeds of the eventual Rebellion and Han eventually joining them.

I wouldn't have minded a shoot-out at the end, but Han shooting Beckett before the latter could get a shot off and Qi'ra versus Vos (and that whole confrontation), as well as the Maul cameo, were all enough for me.

Borgmatrix, everyone I've discussed it with all describes it as enjoyable. That is the feeling you get left with. Not "it was fantastic with you being left on the edge of your seat and need to see it again". There is very little to complain about, but also very little that gets you excited.